A(nother) Musing on Atheism... A discussion yesterday led me to again considering the term atheist. We frequently cling to dictionary definitions in the belief that these will somehow prove our case for us. I am just as to blame when I groan at the erroneous use of the work enormity (assumed to mean huge when it actually means great evil or wickedness). Yet with repeated alternate usage language adapts, and we need to accept that sometimes concepts may even move ahead of language, and therefore that our vocabulary may have some catching up to do. As an aside, I have no idea whether humans - or any other animal - will ever achieve the ability to time travel. However, my rudimentary knowledge of physics, together with my acceptance of the competence of those more adept than myself, leads me at present to *believe* that time travel is highly unlikely. This belief is open to alteration with fresh evidence. My atheism is comparable. When I say I do not *believe* in a deitys existence, it is not a stubborn belief. It is a belief open to persuasion, with fresh evidence. In this respect, as I have posited in the past, atheism is the null hypothesis (not originally my phrase but one I happily accept). It is not that I believe in the absence of a deity in the same way that some believers state ones existence. I simply do not know. But I consider the likelihood highly improbable. As has been stated ad infinitum: the burden of proof in such cases only ever lies with the one making the proposal, not the one admitting doubt. Therefore, in homage to Matt Dillahuntys excellent use of terminology, atheism to me is the Null Hypothesis. This is the best way I have ever found that fairly and neutrally encapsulates my approach to theism/atheism and this is only ever the definition I use. I simply cannot respond to requests to offer evidence for my case - I do not have one. Not enough evidence.
Posted on: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:12:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015